President Obama, Why Are You So Determined To Kill America's Coal Industry?

On Sept. 20 the Obama Administration proposed regulations that would require future coal-fired power plants to deploy currently nonexistent technologies to reduce their CO2 emissions. The President has also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to propose rules next year to reduce CO2 emissions from existing coal fired plants. Coal provides nearly 40 percent of America’s electricity – no small amount – because it is domestic, abundant, affordable and reliable. By putting onerous restrictions on a resource that is such a vital part of the U.S. energy mix and U.S economic prosperity, the President needs to address four fundamental questions about the impact of his proposal – especially since it is being implemented by unelected regulators that are unaccountable to the people of the United States and the Congress.

What’s your plan to fill the future energy gap?

Demand for power in the United States is expected to grow 28 percent from 2011 to 2040 according the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

While we have made progress as a result of energy efficiency initiatives, we will still need new electricity generation in the future – to keep our lights on, manufacturing plants running, electric cars driving and our digital world humming (yes, iPhones and the cloud require lots of power, and it commonly comes from coal). Wind and solar provide only 5 percent of our electricity needs and continue to face technological challenges, most notably storage and 24/7/365 reliability. This is not to mention the amount of subsidies – taxpayers’ money – that renewables generally require to be cost competitive. Our nuclear fleet, which generates about 20 percent of our electricity, is ageing. New plants are facing increased pressure on the back of Fukushima, nuclear waste storage and cost concerns of implementing the next generation of technology.

What we’re left with is counting on natural gas to be the silver bullet. I believe natural gas is good for our energy security and good for our economy, which is good for our country. However, essentially staking our future, and our children’s future, on one energy source is irresponsible, risky and provides us with little margin for error. In fact, even the President himself referred to natural gas as a “bridge fuel” in his climate address. We can’t power our nation to growth without all energy sources, including coal, playing a meaningful role in the future.

How much will EPA’s proposals cost and who pays?

Our country currently enjoys affordable and reliable electricity in no small part because of the diversity of our energy mix. Competition is good for costs and limiting our choices will lead to higher electricity prices for everyone. Today, natural gas is a cost-effective energy solution that many businesses and individuals are turning toward. But what happens when these historically low prices double – or triple – and other energy options like coal are inhibited by government regulation? These costs will quickly reverberate throughout our economy. If there are no coal plants, there is no diversity, and we are forced to pay the cost, whatever it is.

Higher energy prices are regressive and will disproportionately impact the poor and those on fixed incomes who can least afford it. They will also flow through to all the goods and services that require electricity to produce. As part of this, American businesses, especially manufacturing, depend on affordable energy to compete successfully in today’s hyper-competitive global economy.

How long before research into advanced clean coal technology dries up?

Alongside industry, the Administration claims to have invested nearly $5 billion in clean coal research and development. Without a viable commercial market to support advanced clean-coal technologies – where America enjoys unmatched leadership – investment in this space will grind to a standstill. This is a missed opportunity. America was built on innovation, and we should continue to invest across the board to better use those energy sources that provide the vast majority of our generation and consumption. What we should not do, however, is what EPA is mandating: impose standards based on technologies still in the testing phase and not yet ready for commercial deployment.

The electric utility industry has steadily made progress but is still a ways off from developing the carbon capture and storage technologies in the Administration’s proposal. This proposal will undermine the substantial amount of investment that coal-fired utilities have already invested in cleaner production, as well as the significant amount of investment on the horizon. Coal-fired utilities have driven down emissions levels over the past several decades for criteria air pollutants – up to 90 percent in many cases – and the same can be done for carbon dioxide if given adequate time and investment for the technology to mature rather than be handicapped by regulatory mandate. Other countries benefit if the U.S. does not innovate, as the U.S. will lose the opportunity to be a seller of technology to the global market. In the meantime other countries will continue to build coal plants regardless, and be well positioned to out-compete us with a low cost electricity advantage.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Vincent, that is flat out wrong. Since 2011 China has been the world’s largest coal importer, just ahead of Japan. India is 3rd-4th, about the same as South Korea. The US is already one of the largest exporters, and it’s likely already passed Russia to be number 3 (after Australia and Indonesia).

This article is just more example of the right-wing lying Media being a tool of Big Oil, Big Banks, Big coal, Big Pharma, etc.

For example take Solar energy: Sun bombards Earth every day with about 1,00,000 TW of energy convertible to Electricity. Currently we use total of 12 TW of Electricity to power all of Human kind through out the Earth. So the amount of Electricity that is available from clean Solar energy is not 2 or 3 times of what we are using now, but 1000s and 1000s of time greater. Lets put it this way: if we just cover about 5% of State of Nevada with Solar Panels, we would double the Electricity production of USA from an energy source that is totally clean and for all practical purposes for ever. And lets further state that almost 99% of Nevada is desolate, since it is so scorching Hot there year around. And that these vast Solar farms would create 100s of 1000s of high paying Jobs in Nevada which is a state badly in need of good Jobs.

For more Google or Anoox: Powerful interests want you SLAVE to Gas Prices

On top of what procan mentioned, doing what you suggest would require we string cables the size of buses across the US, possible exhausting the world supply of copper in the process (or requiring 5 times more panels).

Even worse is the fact we would need about 13000000000000kWh to make those panels, which would release several dozen gigatons of CO2 (same scale as all human activity for a year or two depending on what type of panel)

I would love to see the math behind that 13000000000000kwh needed to make the panels! Seriously, how much energy does it take to make solar panels and how many years of “free” electricity from the sun is required to offset it all — especially in comparison to natgas or coal?

The math is just 4400TWh/yr *3years, based on the Google renewable resources work (according to their findings an average solar panel’s energy ROI is 3 years). The large number of zeros instead of just 13000TWh was for impact. Due to current energy production, CO2 needed for silicon refinement, transportation, and others, they also estimated the CO2 ROI over an efficient combined cycle gas turbine was something like 13 years, which isn’t great considering the average plant lifetime is just 15-20 years (but does lower the overall CO2 average in the long run). They compared it to wind, which was several times better, and some others have also done the math for nuclear and hydro plants (nuclear returns all energy in 6mo, and CO2 in less than 5 years, while hydro plants take longer for both but also tend to last over half a century and may end up being the best return because of that). Overall, solar PV just doesn’t look all that good from a “green” perspective compared to the other alternative sources.

That doesn’t mean a hill of beans if you can’t capture it. Nobody’s saying that the universe doesn’t produce enough energy; we’re saying that most of it can’t be harnessed effectively. Your line of thinking would encourage us to not worry about a drought in Virginia if there is water on Saturn. Seriously?

“Wind and solar provide only 5 percent of our electricity needs and continue to face technological challenges, most notably storage and 24/7/365 reliability.”

When was that? Both combined made up just 3% for 2011.

As for 24/7/365/ I think you meant just 24/7. And it’s impossible for 100% production during daylight hours alone, let alone all day long.

Your article would have been better off attacking the EPA and Obama’s lack of knowledge in powerplants, since it seems they forget that you can’t just switch fuel sources overnight and much less do it without massive government grants.

The answer is that M. Obama is a fool. Nothing more than that. But the American people elected him: twice. Perhaps having to pay the very high price for that will make them more careful about their choice of leaders in the future. It’s also worth noting that the opposition in those two elections was none too impressive either. But that’s a subject for another time.

Left-wing politicians demonize “Big Coal” because it is easy to do and it benefits them greatly. Left-wingers obsessed with power get more power by restricting the cheap energy sources. The price of energy, by design, then goes up. And since it is regressive, the politician then benefits from providing relief to “the poor and the middle class” in the form of tax credits, subsidies and the like.

The left-wing demonize “Big Coal” in exchange for votes. It is an easy power grab.

I would ask why the coal industry is so determined to pollute the air and dump mercury into our rivers and streams. If the coal industry were forced to pay all the externalities its product generates, coal would be prohibitively expensive. So by forcing coal to pay its externalities or reduce them to a tolerable level, we are actually removing a subsidy from the coal industry. It seems those here who oppose subsidies for all, but particularly for people or industries they don’t hold stock in, would celebrate this decision to make coal compete with, say, natural gas on a level playing field.

Actually, practically every study shows that even including the negative externalities for all energy sources, coal is still cheaper than solar PV that Obama and the EPA are trying to push forward. Sad but true fact of the current solar market. Shale gas isn’t too much better either though, certainly “cheaper” than coal, but not by that much.

The flaw with the externalities approach to cost calculation though is the fact that people really don’t care. If they cared about externalities the first thing they would do is ban tobacco, since that is pure externality, costing more lives than coal while providing zero benefit. Unless the EPA and Obama ban tobacco first, there’s no reason to worry about the externalities because you are more likely to die from tobacco related illness than coal.

I’d like to see an analysis of the negative global externalities of the Obama presidency. There would be quite a tally-and more than a few bodies. It’s also funny how liberals can’t correctly estimate the massive real cost of welfare programs and yet they know just how much coal costs society. Now, we’re getting toward socialism, aren’t we?

Let me finish by saying that MSHA and the EPA ensure that coal is not on a level playing field with gas. The gas folks have it much easier! Ask any miner for examples.